Chamber and committees

Right, I see. In the first instance, it will come to you, having been reported to the police—

We have the figures that show that you are doing better than was previously the case, but my colleagues have mentioned some long cases. It is still quite a long time, is it not? It is nine months before a case can even get to court.

As a layperson, I just wonder why we need both the PIRC and the Crown Office; I do not fully understand that. When I asked the PIRC, she said to me that they prepare quite thorough reports for the Crown Office in investigations. Could not the Crown Office do it all, if you are doing it anyway? Is there not a duplication?

Perhaps it is more of a whistleblowing issue. I am just interested in the issue because, when we are thinking about a big piece of legislation, we want to make sure that the actual problems are captured by it. The issue does not arise often but, in the Emma Caldwell case, we can see that a series of internal decisions were made, compounding one after the other, over a long period, and the lines of investigation were not questioned by anyone until 20 years on. I realise that those cases are rare, and I would like to think that there are now more checks and balances in the system.

Good morning. I confess that I am still trying to get my head around how it all works, so forgive me if I get some things wrong. My first question is about your role in relation to allegations of criminality by police officers. I am familiar with a number of cases that have taken two years or longer. In some cases, officers have been found not guilty and then faced further proceedings from Police Scotland in relation to the conduct aspect of it. It seems grossly unfair, either way, that it takes that length of time. You will find that many organisations will say the same. The police officers are suspended during that period, so Police Scotland does not get the benefit of having those officers until the case is completed. I want to understand the role of the PIRC in relation to, for example, assaults against prisoners, which I think is a more common one. Could you help me to understand that?

If I understand the submission correctly, it says that there should be no change to the current arrangements. Is that correct? It says that

“It would ... be incongruous to suggest that in order to allow proceedings to continue in respect of an officer who resigns or retires in advance of any gross misconduct hearing”,

additional assessment and determination by the PIRC would be required, because that would

“usurp the powers”

of the deputy chief constable. My understanding is that Elish Angiolini does not say anything about that.

You say that, except in exceptional circumstances, the allegation should be dealt with within 12 months if it is “proportionate” to do so. Is that right?

Thank you—that is helpful. You say in your submission that the Angiolini report is silent on the question of who should decide whether an allegation amounts to gross misconduct. Under the current regulations, that is done by the deputy chief constable designate. Can you speak to that point?

You can then make a decision at that point about whether there is sufficiency of evidence, and, if you think that there might be—

Right—I understand.